In the ChessPublishing Archives I see Richard Palliser mentioned 11 Ng5 0-0-0 12 Nxe6 fxe6 "with decent play for the pawn". There have also been a couple of games from this position, after the further 13 Nc3 Monaville,G-Poulsen,A ICCF corr 1989 continued 13...Rhf8 and Erdeljan,M-Curtis,R (2125) Sydney 1997 continued 13...e5, which looks best.

Thanks Tony. I guess my database don't have those games.

If anyone has those games and doesn't mind attaching them here. Thanks.

I guess still curious why the position is not discussed at all in the book.

In the ChessPublishing Archives I see Richard Palliser mentioned 11 Ng5 0-0-0 12 Nxe6 fxe6 "with decent play for the pawn". There have also been a couple of games from this position, after the further 13 Nc3 Monaville,G-Poulsen,A ICCF corr 1989 continued 13...Rhf8 and Erdeljan,M-Curtis,R (2125) Sydney 1997 continued 13...e5, which looks best.

Dear All, I have been reading Sveshnikov's books, especially the blitz and rapid Rep book co-authored with his son and also the book on GPA. I kinda like his approach and his prose in general (esp his book on c3 Sicilian which I have read previous;ly), even though they can be a bit dogmatic and idiosyncratic.

I will like to ask ChessPubbers with more experience a few questions about the GPA, in particular the old-style GPA with 2 f4.

Firstly, on reading the GPA book, Sveshnikov clearly says that the Tal Gambit is the test. So I have been having a look to see if I like that position. [BTW, I have read Denis Monokroussos' review which rather negative on this whole 2 f4 GPA.]BTW, Sveshnikov also say that in his experience most players will not play the Tal Gambit 2...d5 if they have not prepared, but instead will opt for a plan based ...Nc6 and ...g6.On 2...d5, Sveshnikov recommends 1 e4 c5 2 f4 d5 3 exd5 Nf6 4 Bb5 Bd7 5 Bxd7 Qxd7 6 c4 e6 7 Qe2 or 7 Nf3and1 e4 c5 2 f4 d5 3 exd5 Nf6 4 Bb5 Nd7 5 c4 a6 6 Bxd7 Bxd7 7 Qe2 or 7Nf3 or 7 d4 or1 e4 c5 2 f4 d5 3 exd5 Nf6 4 Bb5 Nd7 5 c4 a6 6 Ba4 b5 7 cxb5 Nxd5 8 Nc3

I have started looking at 4...Nd7 6 Bxd7 and 6 Ba4 variations and looked up the databases and only considering post 2010 games as indication (?).On the 6 Ba4 8 Nc3 variations there are 2 games by two (2300+ and 2200+) White players. On 8 Nf3 there is a game by a 2400+ White player.On 6 Bxd7 7 Nf3, there are three Sveshnikov games, three Love Janse (2100+) games and only one post 2010 game by a 2000+ White player. 7 Qe2 there were three games with two 2300+ and one 2100+ White players. On 7 d4, which Sveshnikov said was interesting but untried, the latest I could find was a 2010 game.So not very popular. I will get to these later ......BUT I wish to ask a question about the following, which Sveshnikov mentioned in Ch 2, Theoretical Overview, and subsequently totally did not address in Ch 6 (chapter on 2...d5 variation) unless I am missing something. I am not sure whether this is an oversight on Sveshnikov's part or an editorial mistake by NIC. In any event, Sveshnikov said, "The strongest move is 2...d5!, [......] But in order to achieve satisfactory play, Black should definitely reply 3...Nf6! [......] B) 4 Bb5+ [......] The move 4...Bd7 leads to relatively simple play and the more reliable equality, whilst after 4...Nbd7 a more complicated position arises. Depending on your opponent's play, the tournament situation and your plan for the concrete game, you can make your own choice. I will offer one short variation: 4...Nbd7 5 c4 a6 6 Bxd7+ Bxd7 7 Nf3 Qc7 8 d3 e6 9 dxe6 Bxe6 10 0-0 Bd6. Black has wonderful compensation for the sacrificed pawn, but not more than that. White can play 11 Ne5, 11 Ng5, or simply 11 Nc3. [emphasis added]

I cannot find any games with this position. Can anyone help?Query: Does this variation make any sense? Would a Black player play like this? The two bishops look impressive! Black has better development?White is castled but requires 3 moves to connect the rooks.

Thanks for posting the link. Igor. Not sure why yours is the right link and mine isn't, as both have the same review of the book...mine just has a few more reviews thrown in.

Either way though it does appear to be a rather uninspiring book if you are to approach the opening from White's point of view. I have been playing the Anti-Sicilian as it was known in the late 1960s (from a series of articles penned by Roger Lancaster in B.H. Wood's Chess magazine), for almost 50 years and still find my opponents to be fairly ill prepared for it

You are welcome! you linked the main section, when Dennis will add more reviews the article will drop to the second page, so the direct link is more... precise eheh

Thanks for posting the link. Igor. Not sure why yours is the right link and mine isn't, as both have the same review of the book...mine just has a few more reviews thrown in.

Either way though it does appear to be a rather uninspiring book if you are to approach the opening from White's point of view. I have been playing the Anti-Sicilian as it was known in the late 1960s (from a series of articles penned by Roger Lancaster in B.H. Wood's Chess magazine), for almost 50 years and still find my opponents to be fairly ill prepared for it

Perhaps "just garbage" is a little harsh, but in my mind this occupies the same place as 2.Na3 versus the Sicilian, etc. You can play it in a few games to avoid theory but there's no hope of an advantage. Still, you get a game of chess.